CASE NO. 1513 CRB-1-92-9Workers’ Compensation Commission
JANUARY 23, 1995
At the trial level claimant was represented by Angelo Cicchiello, Esq.,
On appeal claimant was represented by Morris R. Borea, Esq., Polinsky, Santos Borea.
The respondents were represented by Stephen G. Ekern, Esq. and Robert W. Murphy, Esq., Pomeranz, Drayton Stabnick.
This Petition for Review from the September 9, 1992 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the First District was heard August 13, 1993 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of Commissioners John A. Arcudi, Donald H. Doyle, Jr. and Nancy A. Brouillet.
OPINION
JOHN A. ARCUDI, COMMISSIONER.
The claimant appeals the approval of the Form 36 and the consequent denial of Sec. 31-307 benefits effective December 23, 1991. In the First District formal hearings of November 1 and December 3, 1991 the respondents sought approval of a Form 36 terminating benefits pursuant to Sec. 31-296.
Paragraph No. 4 of the Commissioner’s Finding relates that Dr. William P. Shea, III felt “that the continued treatment of the claimant cannot be determined because the claimant’s concern about not settling her case” put her in the position of not being able to be rehabilitated. Paragraph No. 5 recites Dr. Benjamin Wiesel’s conclusion that “after five years of treatment he sees little likelihood of her recovering and returning to the work place without a settlement”.
The Finding has insufficient factual findings. It contains summaries of evidence presented at the hearing. Recitals of evidence are not findings of fact. While the commissioner’s conclusion in paragraph C implies that the claimant is no longer totally disabled on account of her compensable injury, this conclusion is not supported by sufficient factual findings.Gianfrancisco v. A P Tea Company,10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 94, 1124 CRD-7-90-1 (1992).
We must therefore remand the matter to the First District and sustain the appeal.
Commissioners Donald H. Doyle, Jr. and Nancy A. Brouillet concur.